VA denies PTSD Veterans services of service dogs - It's all about $$$

Another MIL Blogger writes about how the VA is hurting PTSD Veterans by denying them the assistance of Service Dogs

This is wholly unacceptable because the bottom line is that the US GOV doesn't want to pay for this simple but effective assistance for our Veterans. 

Meanwhile, we have MILLIONS/BILLIONS to splurge on lifetime gold plated bennies for Congress, Gov workers and their minions.

This is just not right.

http://khanrahan.com/2012/11/15/what-is-the-va-waiting-for/

The Department of Veterans Affairs Spins While Veterans Suffer

---

Posted on 15th November, by Kevin Hanrahan in Soldier. 29 Comments

---

Recently the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced that they would no longer provide service dogs to veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). They will continue to provide service dogs to veterans with impaired vision, hearing, or mobility

I’ve wanted to cry outrage since I first read the announcement. But, before I did so, I felt some research needed to be completed. Let’s take a look at why the VA is refusing to provide veterans these service dogs.

There is no proven medical benefit of Service Dog for those that suffer from PTSD:

In the Federal Register the VA states, “The VA has not yet been able to determine that these (service) dogs provide a medical benefit to veterans with mental illness. Until such a determination can be made, VA cannot justify providing benefits for mental health service dogs.”

My initial response is, “Okay, but why hasn’t the VA conducted studies to confirm or deny a ‘medical benefit’ for veterans suffering with PTSD? Why did they wait until 2012?”

Our Veterans have returned scared and in need of help since 2002. It certainly seems like the VA has dragged its feet on this one.

Don’t worry, though. According to the Federal Register, the VA has directed a three-year study “to assess the benefits, feasibility, and advisability of using service dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with physical or mental injuries or disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Congress directed the VA to conduct this study in 2009. However, according to The Atlantic, the study has been suspended. So The VA says we need a study to determine the medical benefit of service dogs work for veterans suffering from PTSD. But there is no study currently being conducted.
Wow. The logic of the VA simply dumbfounds me.

So how will the VA content with the rising PSTD rates of our veterans until then?

Drugs! The old standby!

A study conducted by Veterans Affairs found that veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with mental health diagnoses—particularly post-traumatic stress disorder—were significantly more likely to receive prescriptions for Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, and other opioids than those with pain but no mental health issues.

When I served as Executive Officer for a Military Police Battalion at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in 2009, we had a young soldier in the unit I’ll call Specialist Jones.

Jones had just returned from a hard Iraq deployment. He was constantly getting into trouble. Most of his troubles stemmed from alcohol use, but he had one particular problem: Jones could never show up on time for formation. The company wanted to kick him out because of his lack of discipline and substance abuse issues.

The Battalion Sergeant Major directed an inquiry into the root of his problem. He wanted to know everything about him.

Was Jones a drunk?
Was Jones on bath salts or smoking Spice?
Was Jones such an undisciplined little shit?
No, no, and no.

Come to find out Jones was on several different types of drugs administered by different Army doctors. He was suffering from physical and mental problems. He was on Oxycodone, Percocet, muscle relaxers and all the other great stuff the military and the VA throw at this mysterious problem of PTSD and veterans physical problems.

I understand that the VA wants medical proof before they agree to provide service dogs. But is funneling drugs into the hands of our troops a better solution? Is there medical proof that Oxycodone solves or helps people cope with PTSD?

Or are we just masking the condition?

How do you medically evaluate whether service dogs help, cure, or do nothing? I’ve researched the heck out of this and I am actually asking you all—Does anyone know? The only thing I can see is evaluating the results of studies. (I’ll address the study the VA is conducting another time.)

Does a chemical in a PTSD suffering veteran’s brain shift when they are with service dogs?

Does a PTSD suffering veteran’s depression decrease with assistance by a service dog? How do you determine this “medically”?

Does anyone know the answers to this?

So what happens to our veterans while we wait for the VA to finish their study?

Why did the VA have to be directed to conduct this study?

I borrowed this chart from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.


The 2012 military suicide rates are on target to outpace the 2011 rates by around 25%. If this trend continues, we could lose thousands of veterans to suicide while the VA tries to pinpoint “medical” proof that service dogs work.

The VA’s mission is “To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise ‘To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orpha’” by serving and honoring the men and women who are America’s veterans.”

Do you think they are fulfilling this mission?

George Washington once said that “the willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by the nation.”

As a nation we need to heed our first presidents words. We must take care of our veterans now.
What I fail to understand is why the VA is waiting for the study to conclude? If we have confirmed cases that this works, then why are we waiting? How many veterans have to commit suicide before the VA uses common sense instead of relying on studies?

So over the next few months I will talk with some veterans about how their service dogs have helped them. These are veterans suffering from PTSD whose lives have changed because of their service dogs.

My first stop will be with former Air Force Sergeant Justin Jordan. Justin details his struggle inhis book, And Then I Cried, Stories of a Mortuary NCO.

I asked quite a few questions in this piece. Please feel free to answer in the comments section.
I’ve very interested in your view on this issue.

Am I wrong?
Am I too emotionally attached to the issue?
Why do you believe the VA is right or wrong on this issue?
What can you do to help?

Please consider signing this petition to provide our Veterans the care they so urgently need.

http://www.change.org/petitions/department-of-veterans-affairs-reverse-the-policy-help-our-veterans-heal-with-service-dogs

 

We Need Adult Leadership - FEDS warn citizens of 'zombie apocalypse' to urge better emergency plans

These idiots who have been put in Government Jobs in the Federal Government need to go. I am disgusted that at the same time we have people in Louisiana and other places w/o power or shelter, these FED Workers are wasting tax dollars and effort to publicize a " Zombie Apocalypse.

REALLY ? These idiots need to be replaced with someone who takes their responsibilities serious. When you see this and add in the orders placed by Social Security Administration and other agencies for thousands of rounds of hollow point bullets, you really wonder when the Adults that are supposed to be in charge of our Government left common sense behind.

The idiots in charge need to go and take their cronies with them. We need common sense if we are to get spending under control and get Goverment under control.

The Government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Obama and his ilk have forgotten that as they only care about themselves.

Seriously? Government warns citizens of 'zombie apocalypse' to urge better emergency plans By Alicia A. Caldwell, The Associated Press | Associated Press – 14 hrs ago.. .

WASHINGTON - "The zombies are coming!" the Homeland Security Department says.

Tongue firmly in cheek, the government urged citizens Thursday to prepare for a zombie apocalypse, part of a public health campaign to encourage better preparation for genuine disasters and emergencies. The theory: If you're prepared for a zombie attack, the same preparations will help during a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake or terrorist attack.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency hosted an online seminar for its Citizen Corps organization to help emergency planners better prepare their communities for disaster. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last year first launched a zombie apocalypse social media campaign for the same purposes.

Emergency planners were encouraged to use the threat of zombies — the flesh-hungry, walking dead — to encourage citizens to prepare for disasters. Organizers also noted the relative proximity to Halloween.

Congress on Vacation

And the difference between them being on the job and on vacation would be ????

The people's representatives in Congress are the epitome of government workers - overpaid, unqualified and lackadaisical - everything we have come to expect from government.....

IT'S A TAX - Just what the DEMS and the President want

Just what the Idjit in charge wanted, the ability to tax the Middle Class right into the Poor House.

And then there's this - the Supreme Court pretty much ripped it up....Pissa.

American workers too scared of lay-offs to take vacation

The Japanese have coined a word for what we are seeing in the American workplace -

''Karoshi" which means (Work to Death)''

American workers are now so afraid to take time off from work due to the recession, they are not taking time they are fully entitled to and need.  No one can tell me that this isn't a sign of the continuing lack of real leadership in businesses and Washington.

People need time off - Studies prove that the best performing teams are those that get ample time off and have the ability to control their own schedules.....But we see that people are afraid that asking for time off will make them prime candidates for the next round of lay-offs.

This is NOT what we should be seeing in our country....it is time for a change as whatever has been going on for the last three and 1/2 years has only made this situation worse.

No time for vacation time?

Why the majority of workers can't -- or won't -- take time off, no matter
how secure their jobs are.
 By Joseph P. Kahn
 Boston Globe Staff / June 16, 2012  
To be gone, or not to be. That is the question.

With peak vacation season looming, it’s certainly a question Meagan O’Hara
and millions more like her have been asking themselves. Do I take all the
time off coming to me? Can I really afford to, financially or otherwise? Or
will I be returning to so much backlogged work that it’s actually less
stressful to stay in the office rather than head for the beach?

This spring, O’Hara, 26, director of business development for a Boston
office-relocation management firm, took the first full-week vacation of her
working life — a Caribbean cruise — but not without some wariness. She’s
held other jobs before — marketing assistant, executive assistant — that
guaranteed her time off. Getting away for an entire week? That did not
happen, she says, because her bosses might decide they could get along fine
without her.

“I’d take a Monday or Friday off, but not full weeks or multiple days,”
O’Hara says. “I kind of felt I wasn’t allowed to, even though the vacation
days were well deserved.”

For younger workers like herself, adds O’Hara, leaving vacation on the
table shows a willingness to do more than what’s expected. Fortunately, her
current employer values taking time off. “If it’s not openly encouraged,
though, you don’t take it,” she says.

According to a recent study by Harris Interactive, an Internet-based market
research firm, 57 percent of Americans ended 2011 with unused vacation
time, failing to take, on average, 11 of their allotted days off — or 70
percent of what they’d rightfully earned. Other national surveys have
calculated that as many as 66 percent of us keep working when we could be
kicking back somewhere, leaving unused a total of 459 million vacation
days.

This mounting pile of bypassed perks has led to the United States being
dubbed “no vacation nation” by Europeans and others who take long,
leisurely vacations. Also creeping into the vernacular: “naycationers”
(those who take little or no time off), “breakations” (lasting only three
to four days), and, of course, “staycations” (time off taken close to home
— or even at home).

“Anecdotally at least, you hear vacation deprivation is getting worse,”
says John de Graaf, executive director of the Seattle-based organization
Take Back Your Time. He co-wrote a 2009 bill mandating paid vacations for
most American workers. (Submitted to Congress, it went nowhere.)

Given studies showing links between working too much — and too long without
time away — and increased risk for health problems like heart disease and
depression, says de Graaf, “It’s really very silly, particularly when
vacations could be one way to reduce health-care costs.“ Yet job security,
or lack thereof, skews our priorities, he maintains.

“Fear is the primary motivator,” de Graaf says. “When the economy’s weak,
they think, ‘I’d better show I’m 110 percent committed to my job.’ And with
companies downsizing and giving people more to do, the stress of coming
back to hundreds of e-mails overwhelms the stress of staying at work.”

“Naycationers” also worry about being tethered to work via cellphone and
e-mail while away, or paying for an expensive vacation — goodbye Vineyard
summer rental! — during tight financial times, de Graaf says.

Sarah Nasnic and her boyfriend could go to Cape Cod for a week this summer,
she says, “but what if the economy tanks tomorrow?” Nasnic, 25, who works
in marketing for a Boston architectural firm, has two weeks vacation coming
this year. She may not use them, though, partly to save money and partly to
continue team-building with her new boss.

Previously, Nasnic worked for a smaller company where job responsibilities
also kept her from taking sustained time off. The result was a happy
surprise: $2,000 in unused-vacation pay when she left the firm. “At this
point in my life and career, I’m not taking any long or lavish vacations,”
Nasnic says.

Howard Goldman has tried to get away from the office more as his kids move
through their teenage years. And yet he rarely stays away for long,
although it has nothing to do with impressing the boss. Goldman is chief
executive of Humboldt Storage and Moving in Canton, a company with nearly
100 employees.

“I’ve never taken my full vacation time,” he acknowledges. “One of the
biggest issues for me is coming back to the enormous amount of e-mails that
pile up, because the work doesn’t stop while you’re away.”

Only once in 20 years has Goldman taken 10 consecutive days off (his wife
lobbied for two weeks) to travel overseas for his daughter’s dance
competition. “It’s hard for me to take even a week off,” he says, “even
though I have a great management team to handle things when I am gone.”

Paradoxically, notes Boston University sociologist Juliet Schor, the
pressure to stay working is felt both in boom times and bad ones. When
business is going well, employers tend to increase individual workloads,
hoping to keep the enterprise running smoothly. During downturns, employees
worry their jobs will grow more difficult, or even disappear. Decisions
about taking time off often hinge on assessing individual risks and
rewards.

“In the higher ranks (of companies), not taking vacation time is more about
not getting the job done,” says Schor. “Whereas at the bottom of the
market, employees can often cash out on unused vacation time when they
leave. For them, it becomes a financial strategy.”

Is there a price to pay for squandering vacation, even if it means more
money in one’s pocket? “Yes,” says Schor. “Common sense says the ability to
step away from the work is very important.”

Harvard Business School professor Leslie Purlow’s new book is titled
“Sleeping With Your Smartphone: How to Break the 24/7 Habit and Change the
Way You Work,” based on her work with The Boston Consulting Group, the
well-known professional service firm. Purlow focuses on what she calls “the
great impossibility” of taking “pure, guilt-free time off” at a company
like BCG, whose clients expect 24/7 access.

Since she began her study of BCG, the firm has organized itself into
hundreds of smaller teams that systematically plan their time away from
work, a process initially christened PTO, short for “predictable time off.”
At first, that meant one night a week without checking e-mail, text, or
phone messages. But it has grown to encompass planned vacation time, too.

“Even though it sounds counterintuitive, the very act of planning makes
them rethink what they do, what their priorities are,” says Purlow. Among
the benefits, she adds, are improved employee retention, better work-life
balance, and increased productivity, adding value to what the firm does for
clients.

BCG project manager Jon Swan agrees that “refreshed brains tend to be more
productive ones,” as he puts it. But a company culture must encourage such
thinking. One friend of his who works in banking was told not to take his
family on a cruise, says Swan. Why? Because in a work emergency, he’d be
stuck at sea and unable to fly home. Instead, his friend took his family to
a destination located near a major airport.

Swan went a different route last fall. After months of planning, he took
his family on a four-day, midweek trip to Disney World, an ongoing work
project notwithstanding. “I’d built the right coverage model,” he says, and
having that flexibility “became an important part of the project.”

Winthrop town manager James McKenna has no such flexibility, he says, which
is why he won’t use three of his four weeks vacation time this year. Again.
With hundreds of town employees working under him, that’s a luxury he
cannot afford.

Municipal governments have seen a lot of budget cuts in the last decade,”
says McKenna. “As a manager, you’re not as free with your time. There’s
virtually no backstop, like there is in the private sector.

“Vacation seems more of a luxury now,” McKenna says. “I’d like to spend
more time with my family, but I’m not holding my breath.”

Joseph P. Kahn can be reached at jkahn@globe.com

If the Feds stopped " cooking the books", the real unemployment rate would be 10.9%

This should come as no surprise to anyone....They are cooking the books to try to make things " look" better for OHB electioneering.....what a scam.

Lies, damned lies and government liars.

Lies, Damned Lies and Government Jobs Data
By Elizabeth MacDonald


Emac's Bottom Line - Published May 02, 2012 - FOXBusiness

There is lots of talk about the "fiscal cliff" the U.S. faces at year end, as stimulus and tax cuts go away.



So the last thing the government needs now is market distrust in its job numbers. But, as analysts dig into the government job numbers, questions are increasingly being raised about the reliability of the data, from questionable revisions in the weekly jobless numbers to the odd changes in unemployment rates.


For 59 out of the last 60 weeks, the weekly jobless numbers have been revised, after the fact, always in the same direction: higher. That's unheard of.


Those revisions higher make the present week’s unemployment number look better in comparison, more so since the markets often treat the prior week’s revision as an afterthought.


And there is statistical manipulation in the unemployment rate, too. The government’s reported unemployment number doesn’t include people who stopped looking for work, but who want jobs.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics says the unemployment rate is dropping, and fell from 10% in October 2009 to 8.2% now. That’s got the White House and media pundits saying an economic recovery has taken place, and that the President’s stimulus bill, which cost more than $750 billion to date, has driven unemployment down towards 8% as promised.


However, the unemployment rate is the number of people out of work but who are actively looking. The government doesn’t count in that rate the now 6.3 million who have given up and stopped looking for work, but want jobs. That number has grown from 5.7 million in January 2009.


So, this "improvement" in the unemployment rate is artificial -- it was due to workers giving up and dropping out of the labor force.


The statistic to look at simply counts the people who are either working or not working. It sets aside the idiosyncratic manipulation whether they’re actively looking for work or not.


If the adult labor force participation rate stayed the same today as it was when the Great Recession ended in June 2009, at 67.5%, the unemployment rate would be 10.9%.


“Some 80% of the reduction” in the unemployment rate from 10% hit in October 2009 to today’s 8.2% “has been from adults quitting the labor force,” says economist Peter Morici.


Morici adds the unemployment rate “rises to 14.5% if you factor back in those who’ve stopped looking for work but would re-enter if there were jobs, as well as part-time workers who would prefer full-time positions.”


Yes, the number of people who have given up looking for work include retiring baby boomers. Still, there is no decent government data showing the number of actual, retiring baby boomers, only estimates. And there are no solid data showing the number of boomers retiring who still want to work.


Overall, government estimates show we have less people wanting to look for work as the population ages, and that’s bad for Social Security, which depends on workers funding it. The “labor force participation rate is declining as baby boomers retire, and what is striking is that decline even includes the number of students and immigrants looking for jobs,” says James Farrell, FOX News analyst.


So ask yourself this: As more people drop out looking for a job, is it right that the government counts it so the unemployment rate looks lower than it really is?


What’s important is the broader trend. Since President Obama took office, America has lost a net 740,000 jobs. But during the first 30 months of President Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery, which started in December 1982, total U.S. employment increased by 8.9 million jobs.


All of this was borne out in the disappointing April ADP employment report today on new private sector jobs, which arrives two days before the Dept. of Labor’s payrolls report for last month.


The ADP number came in showing 119,000 jobs were created in the private sector in April, while analysts had expected it would show that U.S. employers added 177,000 workers (still lower than the 209,000 increase recorded in March.)


It's important to note that the ADP jobs report has tracked the Labor Department’s numbers closely for the last 10 years, according to Charles Brady, senior editor at FOX Business.


“While there is often a wide variance between the two readings, the directional correlation is very strong -- they move in the same direction,” Brady says.


The engine of U.S. job growth, small businesses (those with 1-49 employees), reported a weak 58,000 jobs created, the third straight monthly decline and the lowest since August. Small businesses that produce goods lost jobs, too. Large businesses with more than 500 employees added just 4,000 jobs.


ADP says weather may have played a factor. Better hiring in the mild winter months could be leading to a “payback” in the spring, as businesses have already done the hiring they need for now. Still, all of this means it is unlikely there will be a decline in the unemployment rate Friday, unless the labor force shrinks again, which would not be good, either.


This Friday, forecasters expect the Labor Department to report the economy added 165,000 jobs in April -- better than the 120,000 in March, but still under the 212,000 rate for the first quarter, when the U.S. economy grew at just a 2.2% annualized rate.


The U.S. economy is creating jobs, but it is struggling, adding jobs at a rate of just 131,000 a month in 2011, which is not enough to reduce the unemployment rate.


Morici says the U.S. economy “must add 13 million jobs over the next three years -- 362,000 each month -- to bring unemployment down to 6%. GDP would have to increase at a 4% to 5% pace.”


So there you have it.


Since when does a nation’s labor force shrink during a recovery? It should not shrink, it should grow in a recovery. The labor force participation rate is at the rate it was in 1979 and 1982, even around the same rate it was back in 1969, while the worker population has grown dramatically since.


The rate now is 63.8%, trending at the 30-year low it just hit this past January, at 63.7%. Today there are 154.7 million people over age 16 who either have jobs or want jobs, but out of a much bigger total U.S. population of 16 or older, 242.6 million.


That’s around the same level in July 1982, when the labor force participation rate was 65.3%. There were 110.3 million people working or who wanted to work out of a smaller population of 172.2 million people aged 16 or older.


The labor force participation rate has stayed pretty much the same as it was in 1969, at 60.1%, and 63.8% in February 1979, when the total U.S. population of 16 or older was smaller. The same holds true for more than a decade ago, in April, 2000, when the employment-to-population ratio was 64.7%. That’s when the overall population was lower. at 282 million, versus the 310 million today

US Senator Scott Brown calls for Government Employees to pony up $1 Billion dollars in overdue taxes

THIS is a good example of why we need Senator Scott Brown representing us in Massachusetts. He is not afraid to call out those who feel that the rules are for "the little people".

Awesome. VOTE Scott Brown for an other term as our US Senator in Massachusetts. We need him.


Sen. Brown: Bill targets tax scofflaws in Congress Friday, 13 Apr 2012, 8:41 PM EDT

BOSTON (AP) - U.S. Sen. Scott Brown is pushing a new bill that he said would make it easier to collect back taxes from federal workers and members of Congress.

The Massachusetts Republican said that a recent report by the Internal Revenue Service showed that in 2010, 98,000 federal employees owed a combined $1 billion in back taxes.

Brown said members and employees of the U.S. Senate alone owed over $2 million.

The bill would require members and employees of Congress and federal employees who file financial disclosures forms to report any delinquent tax liability to the appropriate ethics office and come up with a plan to pay off the taxes.

Those who fail to arrange a payment plan with the IRS within a year could have those back taxes taken directly out of their wages

LIAR LIAR - Obama’s health care law will cost DOUBLE what he promised

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Looks like the FOOL in the Oval Office is trying to run fast & loose with the numbers on his signature disaster for our country, Obamacare.

In the history of our great country, there have been times where a government program improved something that the free market operates. This is not one of those times. The law will ensure compliance by enlisting the help of the IRS. REALLY ? How's that " Hopey/Changey" sound now ?

If the idiots in Washington DC can't get the basics right on what makes up good government, what makes you think we want them in charge of our healthcare ?

CBO boosts its Obamacare Medicaid cost estimate
by Philip Klein Senior Editorial Writer - National Examiner

I’ve already noted in a separate post that new Congressional Budget Office projections show President Obama’s health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years, rather than the $940 billion originally advertised. But there are lots of other moving parts in the CBO’s updated estimates that are worth deeper elaboration.

The big picture takeaway is that due mostly to weaker economic projections, the CBO now projects that more people will be obtaining insurance through Medicaid than it estimated a year ago at a greater cost to the government, but fewer people will be getting insurance through their employers or the health care law’s new subsidized insurance exchanges. Overall spending will be higher than estimated a year ago, but increased revenue from penalties and taxes will more than offset this. Also interesting: CBO now expects two million fewer people to be covered as a result of the health care law than previously projected.

It’s worth keeping in mind that what the CBO did today was update its forecasts for the cost of expanding insurance coverage under the health care law. That represents, by far, the bulk of the spending in the legislation, but it doesn’t constitute a full rescoring of the law or a revised deficit estimate. That would have to include estimates for all the taxes, Medicare cuts and other spending in the law. Also, the $1.76 trillion cited above is for the years 2013 through 2022, but if we want to compare changes to last year’s estimates, we have to use the comparable years of 2012 through 2021. (Estimates for 2022 only became available today.)

The CBO now projects that from 2012 through 2021 the federal government will spend $168 billion more on Medicaid than it expected last year, $97 billion less on subsidies for people to purchase insurance on government-run exchanges and $20 billion less on tax credits to small employers. That works out to a $51 billion increase in the gross cost of expanding coverage from what the CBO estimated a year ago. However, the CBO also expects the federal government to collect more revenue from penalties on individuals and employers, as well as other taxes. These revenue increases will more than offset the spending increases, according to the CBO, so it now expects the cost of Obamacare during those years to be $48 billion lower.

It’s also worth noting that we were told time and again during the health care debate that the law didn’t represent a government takeover of health care. But by 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges.